NVIDIA's GeForce 8800 (G80): GPUs Re-architected for DirectX 10
by Anand Lal Shimpi & Derek Wilson on November 8, 2006 6:01 PM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
The Test
In our game tests, in every game we enabled the highest level of quality possible as far as features and effects are concerned. Where it was an option we enabled 16xAF in game. In games with "texture filtering" settings (like Battlefield 2) we endabled the highest level of filtering in game. In Oblivion we forced 16xAF in the control panel.
With the exception of Oblivion, we enabled AA in all our general performance tests. Where we were given the option, we chose 4xAA. In Black & White 2 and Company of Heroes we enabled AA in game (High for BW2 and Enabled for CoH).
| CPU: | Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800 (2.93GHz/4MB) |
| Motherboard: |
EVGA nForce 680i SLI Intel BadAxe |
| Chipset: | NVIDIA nForce 680i SLI Intel 975X |
| Chipset Drivers: |
Intel 7.2.2.1007 (Intel) NVIDIA nForce 9.35 |
| Hard Disk: | Seagate 7200.7 160GB SATA |
| Memory: | Corsair XMS2 DDR2-800 4-4-4-12 (1GB x 2) |
| Video Card: | Various |
| Video Drivers: |
ATI Catalyst 6.10 NVIDIA ForceWare 96.97 NVIDIA ForceWare 91.47 (G70 SLI) |
| Desktop Resolution: | 2560 x 1600 - 32-bit @ 60Hz |
| OS: | Windows XP Professional SP2 |
A Few Words about Performance Per Watt
In the coming performance pages we will be looking at the performance of the 8800 series of graphics cards as well as power consumption and performance per watt of our test systems. Note that the power consumption and performance per watt we are reporting is for the entire system, and not just the GPU, so while you don't get an idea of the performance per watt of the GPU alone, you do get an idea of the performance per watt of the entire system configured as we have. This is an important distinction to keep in mind as performance per watt of the GPU alone could be very different than what we're reporting here. What these numbers will tell you however is the most power efficient setup we have configured here today.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
111 Comments
View All Comments
JarredWalton - Wednesday, November 8, 2006 - link
They did the same thing with the original Halo, porting it (and slowing it down) to DX9. MS seems to think making Halo 2 Vista-only will get people to upgrade to the new OS. [:rolls eyes:]stmok - Wednesday, November 8, 2006 - link
How else are they gonna get gamers to upgrade to Vista? :)(by cornering them into adopting Vista, using DirectX 10.0)
Its sad and pathetic at the same time.
DirectX 10.0 should be a "transitional" solution...That is, it covers both XP and Vista. This allows people to gradually upgrade their hardware, and if they wish, to Vista. What MS is doing now, is throwing everyone (developers and consumers) into the deep end, and expecting them to pay for the changes. (I suspect some would be put off by this, while the majority will continue to accept it...Which is unfortunate).
Great article BTW. Interesting to see the high-end stuff...But I doubt I can afford it in this lifetime!
I have two questions!
(1) Any chance of looking at a triple video card setup?
(I saw a presentation slide which had 2 video cards in SLI, while a third showed something else on screen).
(2) Any idea when the GF8600-series comes?
(mainstream market solution).
yyrkoon - Thursday, November 9, 2006 - link
Great, links arent working ?http://www.gamedev.net/reference/programming/featu...">http://www.gamedev.net/reference/programming/featu...
yyrkoon - Thursday, November 9, 2006 - link
http://www.gamedev.net/reference/programming/featu...">This article was written by a friend of mine back in April after an interview with ATI. Perhaps this will clear some things up.
yyrkoon - Thursday, November 9, 2006 - link
When you break all hardware/software ties to something that has been around for 4-5 years? Its not that easy making it "transitional". From a software perspective, D3D10 is not compatable with XP in the least.I for one, think this is a step in the right direction.
JarredWalton - Thursday, November 9, 2006 - link
Supposedly all of the changes to the WDDM make porting DX10 back to Windows XP "impossible", although I'm more inclined to think the correct term would be "difficult" and you also have to add in "it doesn't fit with MS marketing protocol". WDDM is quite different in Vista however, so maybe there's some substance to the claims.cosmotic - Wednesday, November 8, 2006 - link
On page 9:--Briefly explain what a sub-pixel is in the sentence before--
JarredWalton - Wednesday, November 8, 2006 - link
Due to the size of this article and the amount of time it took to get ready, let me preempt any comments about the spelling and grammar. I am in the process of editing the final document as I read through it, and there are spelling/grammar errors. If they bother you too much, check back in an hour. If you read this an hour from now and you still find errors, then you can respond, though it would be useful to keep all responses in a single thread like this one.Thanks in advance,
Jarred Walton
Editor
AnandTech.com
xtknight - Thursday, November 16, 2006 - link
On p 12 (gamma corrected AA):"This causes problems for thing like thin lines."
acejj26 - Wednesday, November 8, 2006 - link
"If DirectX 10 sounds like a great boon to software developers, the fact that DX10 will only be supported in Windows XP is certain to curb enthusiasm. "I believe this should say "DX10 will only be supported in Windows Vista..."
Not to be rude, but shouldn't the article be edited BEFORE being published??